Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28th April 1999 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case No.212/1998 acquitting five accused persons of offences under Sections 302, 326 read with 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that on 10th July 1998, the deceased Sanjay Popat Sonwane was found murdered near Paldhi village, with multiple injuries including a severed palm. The accused were alleged to have attacked him with sickles, guptis, and razors due to political enmity and personal disputes, including a quarrel over tap water and the deceased replacing the first accused as District Head of Dalit Panthar. Eye witnesses claimed to have seen the deceased running from the accused's hut in an injured condition, chased by the accused with weapons. The trial court, however, acquitted all accused after finding that the evidence of eye witnesses was riddled with omissions, contradictions, and improvements, and that there was considerable delay in recording their statements. The serological evidence was held to be inconclusive because the blood groups of the deceased and accused were not determined. The State argued that the acquittal was against the weight of evidence, but the High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the trial court's view was a possible one and not perverse. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the acquittal, and reiterated the principle that in an appeal against acquittal, if two views are possible, the view favoring the accused must be upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 302, 326, 120B, 34) - The prosecution case rested on alleged political rivalry and prior enmity, but eye witness accounts were found to contain omissions, contradictions, and unexplained delay in recording - The trial court acquitted the accused, noting that blood group determination was not done, weakening the serological evidence - High Court dismissed State appeal, holding that the trial court's view was a possible one and no perversity was established, thus interfering with acquittal was not warranted (Paras 2-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's acquittal of the accused under Sections 302, 326 read with 120B and 34 IPC was justified given the evidence of eye witnesses, recovery of weapons, and C.A. report, and whether the High Court should interfere in the appeal against acquittal.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal, finding no perversity in the trial court's judgment, and holding that the view taken by the trial court was a possible view on the evidence.
Law Points
- scope of interference in appeal against acquittal
- appreciation of evidence
- effect of delay in recording statements
- necessity of blood group determination for corroboration of serological evidence
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (06) 97
Criminal Appeal No. 322 of 1999
S.S. Shinde, S.M. Gavhane
State of Maharashtra Through P.I. Dharangaon Police Station
Rajesh Pitambar Sonwane, Arjun Eknath More, Pitambar Totaram Sonwane, Gautam Pitambar Sonwane, Sunil Pitambar Sonwane
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against acquittal in a murder and grievous hurt case.
Remedy Sought
The appellant State sought reversal of acquittal and conviction of the five accused for offences under Sections 302, 326 read with 120B and 34 IPC.
Filing Reason
The trial court acquitted all accused, and the State appealed on grounds that the trial court erred in appreciating the evidence.
Previous Decisions
The IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case No.212/1998 acquitted all accused on 28th April, 1999.
Issues
Whether the trial court's acquittal was justified given the evidence of eye witnesses, recovery of weapons, and C.A. report, and whether the High Court should interfere in appeal against acquittal.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant State argued: direct evidence of eye witnesses, corroborated by medical evidence and C.A. report, trial court's view not possible.
Respondents argued: evidence had omissions, contradictions, delay in recording statements; deceased had criminal background; blood group not determined so C.A. report inconclusive; possible view taken.
Ratio Decidendi
In an appeal against acquittal, if two views are possible on the evidence, the appellate court should not interfere with the order of acquittal merely because a different view is possible. The trial court's finding of acquittal is not to be disturbed unless it is perverse or impossible.
Judgment Excerpts
possible view has been taken by the trial Court. Upon appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses, the trial Court found that their evidence suffers from omissions, contradictions and improvements.
There is considerable delay in recording the statements of the eye witnesses, and the same creates doubt about the prosecution claim.
though the blood of the accused and also deceased was sent to the C.A.; their blood group is not determined... the C.A. report ... is of no avail to the prosecution.
We have given careful consideration to the submissions ... In that view of the matter, the view taken by the trial Court is possible view. There is no perversity as such in the findings recorded by the trial Court. Hence, we confirm the judgment and order of acquittal.
Procedural History
On 10th July 1998, the deceased Sanjay Popat Sonwane was found murdered near Paldhi village. An FIR was registered at Dharangaon Police Station as Crime No.100/1998 under Sections 302, 326 read with 120B, 34 IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed before JMFC, Erandol, and the case was committed to Sessions Court. The IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon tried the case as Sessions Case No.212/1998 and acquitted all five accused on 28th April 1999. The State of Maharashtra filed Criminal Appeal No.322 of 1999 before the High Court challenging the acquittal. The High Court heard the appeal and dismissed it on 22nd June 2017, confirming the acquittal.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 120B, 34, 326
